Here are some new lens images and early pricing

[navastronia]

I’ll probably be picking up the 800mm prime and wait for everything else to come down in price. Unless the 100-500 is exceptionally good, I don’t see it staying at that price for long.

Indeed. I was hoping for $2400. It feels much too expensive at $2800-$2900.

 

[goldenhusky]

I still hope the RF 100-500mm price in the US is incorrect. That is way too much. OTOH the 600 and 800 are a pleasant surprise to me at least. The only lens that is of my interest among these is the Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS STM Macro. I was hoping that will be around $500. I guess I will wait for a good deal down the line to buy the 85mm. The rest of the lenses are a pass for me. I guess Canon and Nikon are following the foot steps of Sony in terms of lens prices

 

[Aussie shooter]

I hope you are right!
Though this would suggest that autofocus on the new 85mm macro lens might struggle a bit if it needs this extra focus limiter position.

probably more to do with the max aperture creating such a shallow depth of field that it will more likely miss if in the wrong position.

 

[jeffa4444]

EF telephoto users who have not used higher-end mirrorless telephotos with TCs may be in for a pleasant IQ-shock when they see how well they can work together. Take for example the GF 250 + 1.4x for the GFX. The IQ from using the TC noticeably exceeds the bare lens when cropped and enlarged to the same focal length – something I was not used to seeing on EFs with TCs. Stabilization and AF will also be much better with the TCs. I was never happy with the 1.4x on the 100-400 II and 5DsR – it was always sharper to crop and enlarge (some of this was due to the TC IQ loss and some was due to less effective IS when the TC was used).

In any case, I think the pain of the higher price for the 100-500 will be outweighed by the increased performance over the 100-400 II. We'll know for sure soon enough.

The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is better than its EF cousin but you would not want to live on the difference. The RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 IS USM is not the greatest example of optical excellence. Yes both lenses are at the lower end of the RF price point but they have not moved the bar.
It remains to be seen how good the RF 100-500mm will be with & without the converters but for almost 40% more in price it needs to be really good to justify that price hike.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

I don't understand the exuberance about the 85 f2. The only thing hardware wise is that it has IS, but does that really matter when the R6 and R5 have IBIS?

Don't mean to be a downer, but this should have been $500 max price. Possibly $450 on sale.

It's going to be very popular, not because of a headline-grabbing spec but because it's such a useful lens. It brings the old and much-loved 85/1.8 into the 21st century. Let's hope they've addressed the purple fringing!

The price looks high if you compare it with discounted EF lenses, but it's less than half the launch price of the EF 85/1.4L IS which was $1600.

 

[TracerHD]

I hope the rf 85mm f2 is Inside focusing unlike the rf 35.

 

[ozturert]

85mm will be the new EF 85mm f1.8 USM. Canon will probably produce it for 20+ years

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The first four RF lenses released (28-70, 50 1.2, 35 1.8, and 24-105 4.0) are 2 months shy of 2 years old and still sell for their original price. There, just saved you money.

Don't know where you are, but here in the UK the RF 28-70/2L launched at £3050 but is regularly available for £2500-£2600 and if you're quick you can grab one today for £2280 at Amazon or Currys. It also qualifies for a 'Lens Reward' cashback of £290 if bought within 12 months of a qualifying body, giving you a net price of £1990.

 

[Billybob]

Billybob, welcome back. I too took a walkabout, mine through Panasonic and Sony lands. The one quibble I have with your post is that I don't think the Sony 200-600 is in the same league as the third party 150-600s. It may be a G lens, but I own it and the 600mm GM f/4, and aside from aperture, the 200-600 really holds its own. I've been out in the rain innumerable times, and it has been as tough as my 600 f/4. I would say that if the 100-400 II is an L lens, then the 200-600 should qualify as that level as well.

So I will be comparing it to the 100-500 with hopes that it has similar image quality and build. The reduced length and size will be very welcome. The 200-600 did suffer from one major design flaw, which was that the strap lugs were oddly placed very close to the camera mount. This made it never quite balance correctly when hung from a strap, unless you wrapped the strap under the lens foot.

The max magnification will also be very welcome. I missed that a great deal since selling my 100-400 II.

Tiggy, I'm not sure if I'm heartened by your observation that the 200600 holds its own against Sony's longest exotic prime. It's nice to know that I'm getting near-exotic quality for such a low price but somewhat discouraging if the $13,000 lens doesn't provide a substantial improvement in IQ. At least I can save my money.

I've enjoyed my Sony zoom as well and my only complaint is that it loses a little--not a lot--of sharpness above 400mm. I find the lens amazing--as sharp and contrasty as my 100-400L II--up to 400mm. It definitely drops off a bit beyond 400mm. The other long consumer-grade lenses also drop off zoomed out. However, I found that the Sigma 60-600mm matches the 200-600mm at 600mm, and might be a touch better. It's also built like a tank (but heavier!), so these two lenses are definitely in the same class. I didn't test the Sigma long enough to have an opinion on how well its AF performs. I think that the biggest claimed difference between the 200-600 and the GM is the quality of the AF motor(s). Whether this is a noticeable or significant difference, I have no clue. I'm just happy that I have the opportunity to enjoy such a fine instrument (the zoom) for under $2000.

What's enticing about the 100-500 is the smaller size. Size matters and it is worth some premium to get 500mm of reach in such a compact package especially if the IQ holds up (I have my doubts about the f/11 DO lenses). Regardless, these are indeed exciting times.

 

[Etienne]

Hey Canon. Remember that classic and most popular of all lenses in the photographic world? The humble 50mm f/1.4 at a reasonable cost and weight? Is it really too much to ask to make one for the RF?

 

[HenryL]

Don't know where you are, but here in the UK the RF 28-70/2L launched at £3050 but is regularly available for £2500-£2600 and if you're quick you can grab one today for £2280 at Amazon or Currys. It also qualifies for a 'Lens Reward' cashback of £290 if bought within 12 months of a qualifying body, giving you a net price of £1990.

In the US, we unfortunately don't have those lens rewards available to us. 28-70/2L launched at $2999 and still sells for that today. RF 50/1.2L launched and still sells for $2299...you get the picture. In any case, glad some folks in other locations are able to take advantage of those deals you mention. I'm hopeful that this year some of the RF lenses will be on the list when the seasonal rebate offers start this fall - particularly hoping for the 85/1.2L.

 

[privatebydesign]

Hey Canon. Remember that classic and most popular of all lenses in the photographic world? The humble 50mm f/1.4 at a reasonable cost and weight? Is it really too much to ask to make one for the RF?

Ha that’s a joke, search this forum for the unrelenting hate the EF 50 f1.4 gets. Personally I love the thing and have owned the same copy for nearly 20 years and it still focuses fast and noisy, but absolutely accurately, at 1.4.

 

[Proscribo]

Ha that’s a joke, search this forum for the unrelenting hate the EF 50 f1.4 gets. Personally I love the thing and have owned the same copy for nearly 20 years and it still focuses fast and noisy, but absolutely accurately, at 1.4.

So you are the one with the one and only accurately focusing EF 50mm f/1.4!

 

[privatebydesign]

So you are the one with the one and only accurately focusing EF 50mm f/1.4!

Indeed it seems I am, and I have posted proof of it here too with 14 FPS bursts at 1.4. I have also never broken it in nearly 20 years of it rattling around in a camera bag which is more than I can say for several L lenses.

 

[H. Jones]

I get the sense these new crazy telephotos being at this pricepoint shows that Canon is expanding its entry level options across the board in a very big way. Someone could have the 24-240mm and a 600mm in a bag and have basically every focal length you'd ever need for a long hike or roadtrip.

I think these supertelephotos basically confirm Canon will soon do an ultra-affordable ultrawide lens too. I could imagine something like a cheap 17-35mm f/4-5.6.

 

[milkod2001]

Those telephoto lense are very interesting. Wonder what shutter speeds and ISO has to be set even in bright light when using F11 or above to keep up. It looks like you be constantly on ISO 4000 or above. Not an issue for low 20MP R6. R5 might struggle, we see soon.

 

[RobbieHat]

Sticking with Canon and will adapt my 11-24 and my Sigmas for now but that new Sony 12-24 f2.8 WOW!!! I lust for that lens for landscape and Astro. That lens would replace four lenses in my kit. Canon, please, release something similar soon.

 

[AlanF]

Those telephoto lense are very interesting. Wonder what shutter speeds and ISO has to be set even in bright light when using F11 or above to keep up. It looks like you be constantly on ISO 4000 or above. Not an issue for low 20MP R6. R5 might struggle, we see soon.

Bright day = f/11, 1/800s, iso 400. Needs to be rather dull for iso 4000. You can do large birds in flight at a distance on a bright day at f/11, 1/2400s iso 1200. Not the brightest of lenses so use it in reasonable and avoid the dark.

 

[Random Orbits]

Sticking with Canon and will adapt my 11-24 and my Sigmas for now but that new Sony 12-24 f2.8 WOW!!! I lust for that lens for landscape and Astro. That lens would replace four lenses in my kit. Canon, please, release something similar soon.

That is an interesting lens. I saw a few of the "reviews" on YouTube. Seems to have lower distortion than the Sigma 14-24, but the thing I found interesting was Tony Northrup's video. In comparing to Sony's 16-35 f/2.8, the 16-35 was sharper over the overlapping range. That said, it's still going to be a great lens.

I remember threads here where people reported Canon reps were interested in how users want to handle the UWA range. The reps wondered whether users would be more interested in going to a larger aperture (i.e. 11-24 f/2.8) or keeping the same aperture but going even wider (i.e. 10-24 f/4). I don't think Canon will follow Sony's lead for a 12-24 f/2.8. Based on patents, it looks like we might see a 14-28 f/2 and a 10-24 f/4. Coupled with a 15-35 f/2.8, you'll have your choice of focal length range, while trading aperture and price.

 

[RobbieHat]

That is an interesting lens. I saw a few of the "reviews" on YouTube. Seems to have lower distortion than the Sigma 14-24, but the thing I found interesting was Tony Northrup's video. In comparing to Sony's 16-35 f/2.8, the 16-35 was sharper over the overlapping range. That said, it's still going to be a great lens.

I remember threads here where people reported Canon reps were interested in how users want to handle the UWA range. The reps wondered whether users would be more interested in going to a larger aperture (i.e. 11-24 f/2.8) or keeping the same aperture but going even wider (i.e. 10-24 f/4). I don't think Canon will follow Sony's lead for a 12-24 f/2.8. Based on patents, it looks like we might see a 14-28 f/2 and a 10-24 f/4. Coupled with a 15-35 f/2.8, you'll have your choice of focal length range, while trading aperture and price.

My vote would be for the 14-24 f2 all day long. I struggle with the 11-14 mm range on the 11-24 already. It creates many creative challenges being that wide and when I filter it I can't shoot below 12.5 mm without lots of vignetting. I would rather have the f2 (for creative use and astro) than the extra 1 mm.

Horses for courses, but that would be my vote!

Bob